and its municipalities. The technical legal position of those who sought such leases has been vindicated, at least to the degree that the Court has held that the State is not the owner of the submerged coastal lands although the Court appears to have been meticulously careful not to say that the Federal Government owns them. In effect, an underlying and unsuspected flaw has been discovered in the title of the State to these lands.

Let us consider an analogous situation. Let us assume that by reason of some hitherto unsuspected defect in a colonial charter, the title to any large tract of land in either New York or New Jersey has proved defective and that it is discovered to be State property, although since colonial times all concerned believed it the property of its putative owners. Assume if you will that this tract of land is very valuable and that the State may sell it for a large sum or derive large revenues from leasing it.

I have a high regard for the moral consciences of the legislatures of these two States. I feel confident that if such a situation ever arose in either State, the legislature would hasten to adopt remedial legislation vesting title in the putative owners. I have every confidence that the State would not seek to enrich itself at the expense of those who were the true owners in all justice although not in the eyes of technical law. I feel that in the present instance the coastal States have an equal right to rely upon the moral conscience of the Congress of the United States.

It may be argued that public policy requires the submerged petroleum deposits to be conserved in the interests of national defense or otherwise in the public interest. Such an argument would of course be inconsistent with the proposal submitted to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized to lease deposits for private exploitation. More important, however, is the fact that conservation does not depend upon ownership. If the national defense or any other Federal function requires the conservation of petroleum, Congress has full power to act and to do so regardless of whether the petroleum is owned by the Federal Government, by the States or by private corporations, and regardless of whether the deposits underlie the marginal sea, inland waters, or dry land.

It may also be argued that Congress should not give away Federal property. Aside from the fact that the Court has not held these lands to be Federal property, there is no principle which forbids gifts of Federal property to States, municipalities or even private individuals. To assert such a principle would be to deny Congress power to make Federal grants in aid of roads or airports, or to subsidize unemployment relief, old-age benefits, and the like.

In the ultimate analysis there appears to be only one argument and motive which can be advanced in opposition to remedial legislation. It is the argument that the Federal Government can obtain rents and royalties from these petroleum deposits which would otherwise accrue to the States and municipalities. It is the argument that the Federal Government should take advantage of the flaw which has developed in the title to submerged coastal lands in order to enrich itself at the expense of its constituent States and municipalities.

At its annual meeting held last December, the United States members of the American Association of Port Authorities adopted the following resolution:

Whereas in the case of United States v. California, decided June 23, 1947, the United States Supreme Court has made a distinction between the so-called marginal sea on the one hand, and bays, harbors, and other inland waters on the other, has refused to apply to the marginal sea the rules of ownership which it applies to bays, harbors, and inland waters, and has held that the coastal States have no rights of ownership in the so-called marginal sea, or the lands beneath it or the lands reclaimed therefrom; and

Whereas prior to said decision, it was recognized and judicially determined that the States not only owned tidelands and soils under bays, harbors, and navigable inland waters, but also owned soils under all navigable waters, including the marginal sea, within their territorial jurisdiction, whether inland or not, and that such territorial jurisdiction extended at least 3 miles seward; and

Whereas in said decision the Supreme Court has now held that the Federal Government has paramount rights in said marginal sea, without however holding that the Federal Government is the owner thereof, and it is desirable and in the public interest that Congress should exercise its paramount rights in accordance with and not adversely to the heretofore recognized State ownership of such lands; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Association of Port Authorities advocate and urge the adoption by Congress of legislation, to be sponsored by the National Association of Attorneys General, recognizing and confirming that the territorial boundaries of the several coastal States extending at least 3 miles seaward, and recognizing and confirming to the respective States title and ownership of lands lying beneath all navigable waters whatsoever within such territorial boundaries; and be it further

Resolved, That the association oppose any legislation to authorize the Department of the Interior or any other Federal agency to lease lands beneath navigable waters.

In the case of United States v. California the Supreme Court did more than hold that the so-called marginal sea was not owned by the several coastal States. It raised doubts as to whether the boundaries of the original States along the Atlantic coast coincided with the 3-mile limit, as had always been believed in the past, or whether they extend no further than low-water mark along the open sea.

In its opinion, the Court said

when this Nation was formed, the idea of a 3-mile belt over which a littoral nation could exercise rights or ownership was but a nebulous suggestion.

It continued, saying:

Neither the English charters granted to this Nation's settlers, nor the treaty of peace with England, nor any other document to which we have been referred, showed a purpose to set apart a 3-mile ocean belt for colonial or State ownership.

The Court said that "after we became a Nation" our statesmen became interested in establishing "national dominion" over a definite marginal zone. It said that the acquisition of the 3-mile belt was accomplished by the National Government and that the protection and control of it was a function of national external sovereignty.

It cannot be said that the Court held that the seaward boundaries of the original States along the Atlantic coast do not extend to the 3-mile limit. On the other hand, the language used by the Court may well afford a basis for an argument that their boundaries along the pen sea extend no further than low-water mark.

The American Association of Port Authorities feels that any remedial legislation should remove any doubt on this point, and should

recognize and confirm that the territorial boundaries of the several coastal States extend at least to the 3-mile limit.

Unfortunately, Senate 1988 in its present form does not meet this important point. It vests title to and ownership of lands beneath the marginal sea in the several coastal States only if and to the extent that they lie within the boundaries of such States, as such boundaries may hereafter be determined to exist.

While the bill defines the term "lands beneath navigable waters" to include all submerged lands out to the 3-mile limit (p. 4, lines 1 to 8), nevertheless, it purports to vest the coastal States only with title to and ownership of "the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States."

No matter how extensive the area may be comprised within the term "lands beneath navigable waters," the bill confers upon each State only such parts thereof as are within its boundaries, and the bill makes no attempt to recognize or confirm that such boundaries extend to the 3-mile limit. It merely accepts them as they may hereafter be determined to exist-presumably as result of litigation in individual cases. The American Association of Port Authorities therefore urges that Senate 1988 be amended to recognize and confirm that the boundaries of the coastal States extend at least to the 3-mile limit. If the bill is thus amended, the Association urges its adoption.

Insofar as the Port of New York Authority is concerned, it is the municipal corporate instrumentality of the States of New York and New Jersey created in 1921 by a treaty between the two States with the consent of Congress for the purpose of developing the port of New York district. It operates a number of important water-front improvements, including the George Washington Bridge, the Holland tunnel and the Lincoln tunnel across the Hudson River, a pier and grain terminal development on Gowanus Bay, Brooklyn, LaGuardia Airport on the East River and New York International Airport on Jamaica Bay. It is taking over the operation of Newark Airport and Newark Seaport on Newark Bay, and the city of New York is now considering turning over to it the city-owned piers on the Hudson River, the East River and elsewhere.

Under the treaty between the two States the port authority is charged generally with a duty to protect and promote the development of the port district. Among other things, it is charged with the duty of making appropriate recommendations from time to time to the Congress of the United States.

The port of New York district includes an extensive area in both States centering about New York Bay. Its territorial boundaries, which were established by the 1921 treaty with the consent of Congress, extend out into the open sea beyond the entrance to New York Bay for a distance of 10 miles or more.

It must be emphasized that the interest of the Port of New York Authority in Senate 1988 does not arise out of its ownership or operation of the various water-front improvements enumerated above.

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. California was confined to the so-called marginal sea lying within the 3-mile limit but outside of bays, harbors, and other inland waters. The Federal Government's complaint in that case was confined to the marginal 3-mile belt. The prevailing opinion written

by Mr. Justice Black proceeded upon the basis that the rule of State ownership-which is characterized as an "inland water rule”—was the law with respect to bays, harbors and other inland waters. As the rationale for the Court's decision, it recited circumstances and considerations of public policy arising out of international relations and foreign affairs which do not apply to bays, harbors and other inland waters; and it refused "to extend the * inland water rule" to

the 3-mile belt.

* *

The Port of New York Authority is firmly of the opinion that the Court's decision in no way affects title or ownership to the various bays and waterways upon which its water-front improvements are situated, and sees no need for remedial legislation from that standpoint.

Its interest is with respect to the portion of the port of New York district extending into the open sea beyond Sandy Hook and Gravesend Point.

Like the American Association of Port Authorities, the Port of New York Authority feels that Senate 1988 should be amended to remove any doubt as to the location of the seaward boundaries of the original States along the Atlantic coast. It respectfully suggests that Senate 1988 be amended by the insertion of a new section reading as follows:

SEC.. Any State which has not already done so may extend its seaward boundaries (or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the Great Lakes) to a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line. Any claim heretofore or hereafter asserted either by constitutional provision statute or otherwise; indicating the intent of a State to extend its boundaries to a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line is hereby irrevocably approved and confirmed, without prejudice to its claim, if any it has, that its boundaries extend beyond that line.

As used in this act, the term "boundaries" includes the seaward boundaries of a State or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the Great Lakes, as they existed at the time of its admission to the Union, or as heretofore approved by Congress, or as now or hereafter extended or confirmed pursuant to this section, or as otherwise legally established.

The Port of New York Authority would oppose the adoption of Senate 1988 in its present form, but only because it fails to remove the doubts which may have been raised as to location of the seaward boundaries of the original States along the Atlantic coast. If, however, Senate 1988 were amended along the lines indicated, the Port of New York Authority, like the American Association of Port Authorities, would urge its adoption for the reasons explained earlier in this state

ment.

If I may interpolate, I might add that the suggested amendment meets with the approval of Mr. Russell Watson, who appeared here as counsel for the Governor of the State of New Jersey and suggested an amendment in other language. I believe it will also be approved by the National Association of Attorneys General. I might also add that I do not see how any Senator or Member of Congress from the Eastern States can vote in favor of the bill unless it is amended to protect those States.

It is perfectly true that, as a matter of pure law, adverse possession does not run against the Federal Government, and the acts of its officers and agents do not create estoppel against it. In other words, the

courts will not render binding judgments or decrees against a sovereign upon those grounds.

But the question now before Congress is not one of law but of sound public policy. The doctrines of adverse possession and estoppel which apply in private litigation were not arbitrarily created. They have a firm basis in natural justice and equity. They have developed because of the sound belief that it is contrary to public policy to put a premium upon seeking flaws in real-estate titles, and because of the natural human feeling that when a man has long continued in possession of real property it is unjust and inequitable to oust him because of any technical flaw in his title.

As a matter of sound public policy it would seem that these principles should apply between the Federal Government and its constituent States as well as between individuals. The fact that technical rules of law prevent the courts from applying these principles as against the Sovereign does not deny their existence. It merely means that the remedy lies with Congress instead of with the courts.

If an underlying flaw were to be found in the grant from the State of Maryland pursuant to which the District of Columbia was createdif it were found that the title to this building was legally in the State of Maryland-I am sure that the legislature of that State would do the right thing and hasten to confirm and restore the title of the Federal Government, and that it would do so upon the ground of simple justice and good conscience. Congress is not bound by the technical rules of law which bind the courts, and in the present instance we believe similar considerations should lead it to vest title to the submerged lands in the States.

Mr. HOWSER. May we make a statement, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. JOHNSON. I wanted to say as far as the National Association of Attorneys General are concerned, they are very agreeable to the amend ment which has been suggested by Mr. Shelley.

Senator MCCARRAN. Has the amendment been filed with the committee?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is incorporated in his statement.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Shelley, you and General Johnson have certainly brought before us a most interesting and far-reaching suggestion, one that has gone further than anything I know of that has been presented thus far in this hearing in some respects. Here you are coming in and saying, as I understand it, and I quote from your statement:

The American Association of Port Authorities feels that any remedial legislation should remove any doubt on this point.

That is, the point you have just presented—

and should recognize and confirm that the territorial boundaries of the several coastal States extend at least to the 3-mile limit.

Then you take up the unfortunate situation that Senate bill 1988 in its present form does not meet. In other words, as I understand it, Mr. Shelley, you are opposed and your authority is opposed to S. 1988 in its present form. Is that right?

Mr. SHELLEY. Unless it is amended in the manner that we have suggested. That is true of the Port of New York Authority. So far as the American Association of Port Authorities is concerned, the tech